The Courtroom at the Supreme Court building is small and early yesterday morning extra chairs had to be brought in to accommodate everyone wishing to observe the proceedings.

There were also anywhere from 15 to 20 lawyers, with a number from London, who were present participating in the proceeding of the day.

A representative from Mr. Hoffman's London Public Relations (PR) firm, Gardant Communications, www.gardantcommunications.com, was also present. The TCI Journal had been hearing for several weeks, from several sources in London, that for the last few weeks representatives of Gardant, Locksley Ryan, who was present in the Courtroom yesterday, and Lord Gillford the founding partner of the firm have been meeting with major British Media making the case for Mr. Hoffman in London.  The Editors may have more comment on this firm, and how its British political connections may effect the TCI, in the days and weeks ahead.

Attorneys for Dr. Cem Kinay made their presentation to the Court and the attorneys for Mario Hoffman almost finished their presentation. They require perhaps another hour or so on Friday to finish. After that lawyers for the defense; Sir Robin and the Commission, the Governor, and the Attorney General's office will make their case.

Attorneys for both Dr. Kinay and Mr. Hoffman are making essentially the same case; the heart of their case is that they feel Sir Robin and the Commission went beyond his remit, beyond the instructions given him and his Inquiry.

In a document addressed to TCI Media, received by the TCI Journal at 18:07 pm yesterday, attorneys for Mr. Hoffman warn against improper reporting of yesterday's events.

The document which is labeled: "Legal Notice" states -

"While fair and accurate reports of Court proceedings may be protected at law, this does not apply to any additional allegations added to those reports. The making of any false allegations against our clients in this way may expose you to a claim in libel."

The document summaries Mr. Hoffman's case as:

"It is our clients' case that the allegations have been made despite the fact that they are outside the remit of the Commission - that is that the Commission was to inquire into whether there "may" be grounds for having a proper tribunal of fact investigate any allegations made (i.e. a criminal investigation) and not to make findings of fact itself, and secondly it was to consider past and present elected members of the House of Assembly and not our clients. Further, the allegations have been made despite the fact that they have been made in breach of the obligations of procedural fairness owed to Mr Hoffmann. "

While I will wait for the hearings to conclude to give a fuller account and commentary, the key point for me that came up yesterday was that both Dr. Kinay and Mr. Hoffman have both received Salmon letters from the Commission. Salmon letters are documents sent to individuals in order to alert them that they may be negatively referred to in the findings of the Commission and to give those individuals an opportunity to respond and have their representations considered by the Commission before it issued its final report.

We understood from yesterday's testimony that Dr. Kinay's Salmon letter referred at least to the alleged bribe, or alleged political donation, of $500,000 made by Dr. Kinay to Michael Misick. Mr. Hoffman's letter allegedly referred to several issues. An allegation of potential bribery being one of the number of issues.

It is my opinion that it is hard to understand how, as stated by the attorneys for Dr. Kinay and Mr. Hoffman, how IF, as they say, the Commission of Inquiry was to investigate ONLY alleged wrong doings by members of the House of Assembly, how the Commission could do its job without inevitably needing to investigate "who" the House Members did the allegedly wrong doings "with"?

This case before the Supreme Court may be finished on Friday, or it may take the full three days allocated to it and finish on Monday June 8th.

God Bless